| Complaint: | Complaint 19-20 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Patricia Bennett |
| Premises: | Midwestern University |
| Related: | 19-19, 19-21, 19-22, 19-23 |
Note that this is a very complex situation and stretches across several related complaints. This pertains specifically to the complaint against Bennett.
The complainant tells us that Bennett was involved in the dog's care at Midwestern on several occasions. Bennet was involved in making arrangements for the dog's dental and also suggested keeping the dog overnight after he couldn't breathe well after the dental. Most relevant, Bennett was involved in discussions about the dog after the ill-fated aspiration attempts that subsequently occurred. On one follow-up once the dog could no longer walk, Bennett came in and said that sometimes older dogs just need some time to recover after being stressed during a procedure; she allegedly said that the dog would snap out of it in a day or two (he didn't). She also arranged a visit with Evans when the complainant called a week later.
Bennett's response gives us Midwestern's version of the events, detailing how the dog was actually improving on subsequent visits. We also hear that Evans in particular was very happy to see the dog doing better. Bennett seems to argue the view that the dog's problems were largely the result of disc disease and recommended a (second) neurologic consult which was arranged later that day through urgent care. It also appears that McCloud (or someone else) was prepping these statements along with the veterinarians, which is no surprise. Both Thomas' and Bennett's statements contain phrasing such as "Sometime after my last conversation with Owner, I was advised by Dr. Eberhardt that Titus had died. I had not seen or treated Titus since..." along with a rather specific writing style.
The Investigative Committee found a rather interesting violation. Apparently there were blood work results that Bennett didn't review that should have been reviewed as a result of the dog's presentation on emergency. It also reads like the medical records themselves were written in such a way as to mask this fact by suggesting that changes to the treatment plan were made in response to blood work, not noting that the blood work was actually an older run done the prior month. The veterinary board concluded this finding was all just a mistake and that Bennett did have access to the results of the blood work; they disagreed with the investigators and dismissed with no violation.
Donald Noah's recused here because he was working for Midwestern University. See the writeup on 19-19 for details.
| Source: | December 12, 2018 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Barbara McCloud | Respondent Attorney |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Patricia Bennett | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Christine Butkiewicz | Aye |
| Donald Noah | Recused |
| William Hamilton | Aye |
| Violations: | |
| ARS ยง 32-2232 (12) as it relates to AAC R3-11-501 (1) failure to provide professionally acceptable procedures for not trying to find out if the blood results from the previousday were available which would have assisted in making a treatment plan for the June 20th visit. | |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | January 1, 2019 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Barbara McCloud | Respondent Attorney |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Patricia Bennett | Respondent |
| Proposed By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| Roll Call: | |
| Christina Bertch-Mumaw | Aye |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Absent |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Recused |
| Sarah Heinrich | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
The primary source for the above summary was obtained as a public record from the Arizona State Veterinary Medical Examining Board. You are welcome to review the original records and board meeting minutes by clicking the relevant links. While we endeavor to provide an accurate summary of the complaint, response, investigative reports and board actions, we encourage you to review the primary sources and come to your own conclusions. In some cases we have also been able to reach out to individuals with knowledge of specific complaints, and where possible that information will be included here.